Talk:Neo-feudalism

Thank you to whomever rennovated this article, though it would be nice if there were still a summary at the top of the page. When I first looked up neo-feudalism, many years ago, the article in existence said that it was purely a pejorative term, and gave no description or definition. Most of the other sources on the web parroted this site's "definition," so that for the general webgoing public there was no ability to discuss this (rather important, in my opinion) idea unless you referred back to published sources. I undertook an extensive reading research to re-write the article (7+ years ago, I believe) and the result was the backbone of "older" article mentioned above, much of which remained in place until fairly recently. I like that the new version has more thorough citations of published works, though it seems much of the topic was lost and what remains only discusses privatization of government, which may compromise the article's relevance by narrowing its scope to only one aspect of neofeudalism. I am concerned about the future of this page, after looking through the history at the repeated attempts to gut and/or delete this article. I fear that this concept is regularly targeted for language control by individuals whose personal politics may support neo-feudalistic policies or institutions and who harbor philosophical objections to the wide use/existence of this term. There are Wikipedia articles covering profanities, web-speak terms, abbreviations common in texting or messaging as well as old and new slang terminology of the most passing sorts. Yet this article is still regularly nominated for deletion under the assertion that there exists no such concept or idea (or, rather, that such idea should not exist or be discussed) as neofeudalsim despite its wide use, that the word is merely a neologism which is somehow less relevant to the English language that many of the other trivial and faddish terms and ideas covered on Wikipedia. I do like the new material, but it is disturbing that the entirety of the old article - several pages worth of contributions by various individuals - has been completely deleted. --68.224.50.211 (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Block quotes

This page deals extensively in block quotes with only one, relatively minor, use of the term. 66.31.219.208 (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it's better to just summarize what the quotes say in original words and link to the source. The article used to have a lot of original text, but was deleted for reasons I don't know, probably related to the Article for Deletion in September 11'. Entire sections gone, including an etymology. It's there in the history record for anyone interested. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that old version is much more what I was hoping for when I came here for a quick overview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.163.88 (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I would add to this article on "Neofeudalism" the effect it has on class relations: a lack of noblesse oblige and the loss of a feeling of reciprocal obligation between a landless peasantry on the one hand and an aristocracy which is not tied to any particular locale due to its portable wealth. e.g. Mitt Romney, who did not serve in the military during a time or war, nor did his sons; has his money in an overseas bank to avoid American taxes and admittedly pays less tax than his secretary, yet runs for President of the USA. The "landless peasantry" are dependent on market forces and the government rather than on fealty to an overlord for security and stability in society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elfraed (talk • contribs) 13:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

An interesting comparison would be to look at this in relation to the "burvclave" gated communities run by "FQNEs", "franchise-organised quasi-national entities", in the Neal Stephenson novel Snow Crash. 99.224.180.176 (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Also Bruce Schneier on "feudal security". [1] [2] 99.224.165.88 (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Neo-feudalism as government state

Immanuel Wallerstein in year 1992 made his view on global development of the world. Three variants, one of them - neofeudalism - autarky regions with local hierarchy and hi tech goods for elite. (I don't have English refs to this, sorry)

In article you say about corporations cooperating with government. But how about government become corporation, how in Putin's Russia? Corrupt vertical of power (Putin - oligarchs), that he build is much more like feudalism (sovereign - lords).·Carn !? 11:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

What's going on?

This Article is little more than a ruin. The old version was much, much better. Thanks to Green Cardamom for linking it first, or else I would've missed it. Geez, one would've thought this Article would get more attention & care, considering we're already living in a neofeudalist world. :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.240.60.86 (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

That is true. The new version has not kept good sides of the old one.·Carn !? 14:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

This article was recently cited

This article was recently cited in a financial newsletter, which gives it some measure of merit. However, the referring article was more related to Friedrich von Hayek's The Road to Serfdom which it probably confused with neofeualsism as defined here being a different concept. Hyaek's serfdom is related to the Georgist view that high land prices inhibit economic growth and cause income inequality; however, I do not recall seeing the term used in Georgist writings.

As it stands now I do not think there is a very good definition of neofeudalism and not enough usage to justify keeping this article. Therefore I vote to delete.Phmoreno (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism

The sentence "It is related to neo-reactionary ideas like anarcho-capitalism." have been heavily disputed today so I thought it might be better to actually discuss it instead of having a silent edit-war. My position is that anarcho-capitalism is not a neo-reactionary idea and that the previously mentioned sentence should be deleted or provided with a reliable source (if any exists).

The neo-reactionary link leads to the 21st century section of the Reactionary page where you will find this sentence: "According to The Daily Caller, the movement's objectives included opposition to any form of egalitarianism as well as "a return to traditional gender roles, monarchism, and typically a more libertarian-oriented economic system".".

Anarcho-capitalism is not opposed to egalitarianism (anarcho-capitalists have diverse opinions on egalitarianism), while anarcho-capitalism have nothing to do with gender roles most anarcho-capitalists are against "a return to traditional gender roles" and all are against using force to establish or protect gender roles and all anarcho-capitalists are against monarchism as it necessitates a state.

--Nuclearsnke (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not heavily disputed, you're vandalizing the page because it was pointed out by reddit. You're conjecture on the opinions of ancaps regarding social issues are not sufficient. The belief in natural rights and the natural order of things that underpins the archano capitalists rejection of the state is certainly a neo-reactionary idea. The economics behind Archano Capitalism are certainly reactionary. 2605:A000:160A:C016:B4CA:F72B:8AEC:2B85 (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalists belief in natural rights usually take the form of the non-aggression principle which says that it is wrong to initiate the use of force. I have no idea what you mean by 'the natural order' and I have never heard an anarcho-capitalist mention it. Do you have a source for the claim that anarcho-capitalism is a neo-reactionary idea? Nuclearsnke (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as you do not seem interested in discussing the issue any further, I will remove the reference to anarcho-capitalism from the article. If you disagree with this, please respond to me here before reverting my change. Nuclearsnke (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

First use of "neo-reactionary" is by Orwell, who characterized those that believe that humans cannot be made better by act of parliament as neo-reactionary. Now stop vandalizing the page with your PR war launched from /r/anarcho_capitalism. 2605:A000:160A:C016:B4CA:F72B:8AEC:2B85 (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Your source doesn't mention anarcho-capitalism and most anarchists regardless of type believe that humans cannot be made better by act of parliament. The quote was however not meant to be taken literally and it seems to me like Orwell was alluding to the belief that humans are naturally evil or at least inherently holds some negative characteristics. This belief have nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-capitalists have different and unrelated opinions on the subject. I will wait a week before reverting for you to respond to my criticism or find a better source. If you think I am vandalising, please report me to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism so we can get this resolved. Nuclearsnke (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Orwell touched a lot of bases when he coined that phrase, but generally it was the various philosophies that all had in common the idea that man could not be made better via act of parliament. If you're honestly suggesting that being against the use of the state is somehow not about anarcho-capitalism, then there's nothing really more about to discuss. It's already been pointed out in another topic that this topic has been targeted by a POV edit raid by /r/anarcho_capitalism, and you just happened to make an account and show up the exact day that happened, and started making edits along with a few other accounts with no discussion whatsoever. I could report you, or you know, you could stop vandalizing the page. 2605:A000:160A:C016:B4CA:F72B:8AEC:2B85 (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Off site discussion

Just a heads up that the ancap sub on Reddit is currently discussing this article, so regulars might need to expect some POV editing in the short term. N^oformation ^Talk 08:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)